Can America’s “Re-Industrialization” Succeed?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 28 January 2011
by Sun Lijian (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Jason Nordmark. Edited by Hoishan Chan.
Not long ago, I went to the United States to visit a number of U.S. manufacturing companies. In the current American “re-industrialization” strategy, can the “re-equipment” of U.S. manufacturing enterprises play a role in any major restructuring of the U.S. economy? I believe that the United States’ “re-industrialization” strategy is not creating new manufacturing channels and still relies on the short-term advantages of traditional industries to expand their exports. Therefore, the effect on the future will be greatly reduced. The United States will adopt more protectionist measures to safeguard their current “re-industrialization” strategy. Chinese companies must recognize the substance of this current round of “re-industrialization” before investing in the United States.

It should be noted that since November 2009, President Barack Obama has emphasized the “re-industrialization” strategy to get rid of dependence on the financial services industry and revitalize the manufacturing industry. He hopes to restore the U.S. economy and reverse the deficit and trade deficit problems. There obviously have to be changes in both the domestic and international U.S. markets. For the domestic market, the U.S. must cut taxes, increase liquidity and stimulate the supply and demand dynamic. For the international market, they must promote U.S. products and price competitiveness and improve the balance sheets of U.S. companies and institutions. During Hu Jintao's trip to the U.S., he and his team realized that through the Sino-U.S. trade cooperation agreement the U.S. government is promoting their idea of “re-industrialization.”

According to my understanding, the U.S. government is promoting this “re-industrialization” strategy not only to heat up their multinationals’ business in emerging markets, but also to achieve a transformation of domestic enterprises and attract more Americans into manufacturing jobs. This “re-industrialization” cannot do without government support. Besides the U.S. auto industry, most of the other manufacturing sectors have lost their former glory. The recovery of these industries will not happen quickly. During the crisis period, three major U.S. auto companies were not able to adequately finance the cost of developing green energy vehicles and now the local government is trying to attract Chinese investment in private capital to the area.

Therefore, at present, the United States’ “re-industrialization” will not have any drastic effects in the short-term. The United States will still have to rely on traditional industries to expand exports. The U.S. government, in U.S.-China bilateral trade and investment talks, has demanded that China open up more markets and import more U.S. industrial products. This is just as Japan previously requested American domestic markets be opened to their automobiles. Chinese companies entering the U.S. market must understand the essence of “re-industrialization.” They must simultaneously recognize the advanced manufacturing and green energy industry, the timing of entering the U.S. market, long term strategy and the cost of investment. Chinese enterprises should note that the generation of new manufacturing and large scale green energy industries have still not occurred and will not for a number of years. Therefore, those Chinese enterprises that prematurely enter into the U.S. market will likely become martyrs.

So, in the medium and long term, the United States “re-industrialization” strategy can help the U.S. rebound from the low point of its crisis. The key is whether or not the U.S. can once again play on its national capacity for innovation. Once the present “stagflation” hangover intensifies, the U.S. government will struggle at all levels to make ends meet. The effect of recovery could be dampened if the U.S. government adopts trade protection measures. The healthy development of the world economy will pay a very heavy price if this happens because the dollar-dominated international monetary system will be at risk of collapse.

(The author is vice president of the Economics College at Fudan University.)


作者:孙立坚 复旦大学经济学院副院长


  不久前,笔者去美国访问参观了不少美国制造业企业。在美国“再工业化”战略下,重新被“装备”起来的美国制造业企业能否担当重整美国经济的大任?笔者认为,美国的“再工业化”战略不是制造业的破旧立新,短期内仍然需要依靠传统产业优势扩大其出口,将来的效果会大打折扣。美国仍会采用更多的贸易保护主义的措施维护“再工业化”战略,中国企业在赴美投资前,必须认清此轮“再工业化”的实质。


  应该说,自2009年11月,奥巴马就开始强调“再工业化”战略,摆脱对金融业和服务业的依赖,重振制造业发展,回归实体经济,以此重整美国经济,希望通过“再工业化”挽回这场危机给美国经济造成的损失,并扭转美国经济所面临的“财政赤字”和“贸易赤字”问题。这显然离不开美国内外市场的配合。因此,针对国内市场,美国采取减税、增加流动性等政策组合拳来激活产品“供给”和需求的活力;针对国际市场,则促进美国产品大量出口和价格竞争力提升,改善美国企业和机构的资产负债状况。这次在胡锦涛主席率领的中国访美阵容和中美商贸合作协议中,都能看出美国政府在推动中美经贸合作关系上所渗透的美国“再工业化”思路。


  从笔者前一阶段去美访问的见闻来看,美国政府推动的“再工业化”战略,并非简单地将自己在新兴市场的跨国企业召回美国,重起炉灶,做和中国企业一样的东西,而是在政府支持下实现国内企业转型,提升竞争力,吸纳更多的美国人在制造业就业。这种“再工业化”离不开政府的大力支持。不过,除了美国汽车业依然还保持一定竞争力外,大部分制造业已经失去昔日雄风,虽然“再工业化”的“春风”遍及各个产业的角落,但是产业扩张依然因为转型成本昂贵等不利因素,无法快速复苏。有的行业在这次危机后,可能渐渐退出历史的舞台,这也是到目前为止美国整体失业率居高不下的一个重要原因。笔者在美国期间还注意到,美国的三大汽车企业目前并没有积极花高成本开拓新能源动力汽车,而很多地方财政状况的恶化使政府在帮助企业转型的过程中力不从心,一些财政状况较差的地方政府正设法吸引中国民间资本去那里投资。


  因此,目前来看,美国“再工业化”,并不会有大刀阔斧的变化,短期内美国仍然需要依靠传统产业优势扩大出口。美国政府必然从“再工业化”战略布局的角度,结合“再平衡”要求,讨论美中双边贸易与投资等问题,甚至会要求中国开放更多市场,进口更多美国工业产品,就像当年要求日本开放国内汽车等市场一样。中国企业在进入美国市场前,必须认清“再工业化”的实质,尤其是中国先进的制造业和新能源产业选择在此时进入美国市场,在考虑投资成本的同时,更要考虑长远战略。中国企业应该看到,现在还没有出现新一代产业革命的迹象,新型制造业和新能源产业的规模效应要在若干年后才有可能出现。因此,过早进入美国市场在这些领域配置太多资源,很有可能成为“先烈”。

所以,从中长期来看,美国的“再工业化”战略能否帮助美国真正走出危机的低谷,关键就要看美国能否再度发挥自己国家具备的“创新”能力。一旦现在“滞胀”后遗症加剧,美国各级政府入不敷出的问题日趋严重,美国现在看上去非常“务实”的“再工业化”战略,效果就会大打折扣,甚至恶化到美国政府还会采用更多的贸易保护措施来维护“再工业化”战略。那么,世界经济的健康发展就会因此而付出沉重代价,美元主导的国际货币体系也会因此再度面临崩溃的风险。▲(作者是复旦大学经济学院副院长。)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Topics

Venezuela: The Devil in Los Angeles

Germany: Donald Trump’s Military Intervention in LA Is a Planned Escalation

Mexico: Migration: A Political Crisis?

Poland: Los Angeles Riots: Battle for America’s Future

Germany: Donald Trump Is Damaging the US

Canada: President Trump, the G7 and Canada’s New ‘Realistic’ Foreign Policy

Taiwan: The Beginning of a Post-Hegemonic Era: A New Normal for International Relations

Canada: Trump vs. Musk, the Emperor and the Oligarch

Related Articles

Hong Kong: Amid US Democracy’s Moral Unraveling, Hong Kong’s Role in the Soft Power Struggle

Russia: Trump Is Shielding America*

Hong Kong: The Lessons of World War II: The Real World Importance of Resisting Hegemony

Mexico: The Trump Problem

Taiwan: Making America Great Again and Taiwan’s Crucial Choice

1 COMMENT

  1. Dear Dr. Sunlijian,

    Imagine your economics lecture becomes disrupted one day by a mob of angry students –

    “Professor, why should our university pay you $5 a lecture when we can get the same lecture sent to us electronically from Nigeria for $1?”

    So they install a video-conferencing monitor and within minutes, Dr. Nbongo – a Professor of FREE TRADE – delivers the same economics lecture live from Lagos into your Fudan lecture hall for just $1…

    After you’ve lost your professorship, your home, your family, you sit on a park bench wondering – “What did I do wrong to lose my livelihood?”

    Your answer?

    Sincerely,
    Mark Gendala
    Melbourne, Australia
    http://www.ssotu.com